Talk:Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to: navigation, search

This guy is a dirty old perverted man obsessed with sex[edit]

https://www.quora.com/profile/Abd-Ul-Rahman-Lomax/answers/Sex

He's 74 years old and he spends his time talking about organisms and sex. Absolutely disgusting.

Also claims to be a sex-addict:

"Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, 1991 WS Conference chair 12-step program re sex addiction

Answered Apr 20, 2016 · Author has 2.1k answers and 4.4m answer views

"In the middle of things."

I have known prostitutes, even reasonably well, but never, ah, entered the space of being "in the middle of things" with one in her professional capacity, nor, as it happens, in any other capacity other than talking about sexual addiction, which is where I met them. MrStrong (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Somebody is obsessed about sex, all right. It's Oliver D. Smith (MrStrong and many many other accounts.) He wrote the original of the article attached, on RationalWiki -- or his brother Darryl did, because it was his brother I confronted for impersonation socking on Wikiversity. So, I have 37 Answers on Quora for questions categorized under "Sex." I have a total of 2,203 Answers on the site. People ask questions about sex, it's an important part of life for many or even most. Not for Oliver Smith, who is an "anti-natalist." Good thing, too, because if I can imagine how to make the world worse, it would be to have more people like Oliver D. Smith. The thought is utterly disgusting.
  • To him, anyone writing honestly what they think or feel or know about sex will be proof that they are some kind of pervert, because that's how he thinks. I have 4.4 million page views on Quora, running 100K per month. Oliver D. Smith has 14 Answers and his page views are running 468 per month. I have over 1900 followers, including some of the best writers on Quora. He has 14 followers, one of whom is actually an active Quoran, by the usual measures. (And she may have taken in a sick puppy, some Quorans do that.)
  • I did not claim to be a "sex addict." The program I mentioned is about sex addiction, among other things. The fact is that most normal people have some level of addiction to some kind of sex. I'm not saying more about the program, but sex is only part of what it addresses, so one can make few assumptions about a person from attendance at meetings. I also have been to many AA meetings and even spoke at one, but I am not an alcoholic, and never have been. I have never "used" a prostitute, I have never had sex at all with a prostitute, as far as I know (some women may engage in sex for sale on some way or other at some time, and then never talk about it, so it's not impossible. But unlikely.) -- but that's just a fact. Prostitutes are people like everyone else.
  • Oliver loves to take comments out of context, if they may, for some readers, make his targets look bad. But nobody really cares here. Since he's been ramping up his trolling in various places, he is still obsessed, but, of course, he claims that his targets are obsessed with him. I document what I see and move on. If I come back, it's generally because the behavior is repeated. So he's trolling here, now. (And on my user talk page and elsewhere.) He has, apparently, nothing better to do. Certainly not having a life. I know about and am supporting legal action over what he's done. It takes time, and effort, and sometimes money. You have to work really hard to get sued, usually. He's put in that effort, so he may get the payoff, what he's been setting up. I'm only peripheral to most of that, though he suckered an organization into libelling me, and I'm told by legal expertise that I have a case. It's still a pain in the ass to file a lawsuit, I've been putting it off because I actually have other things to do that might be more important.
While I'm here, one more comment. The quotation about the prostitute is taken out of context, which is typical for Oliver. "In the middle of things" was a quotation from the question details. Here is the full answer, and from there you can read the question. Quora, after this Answer was written, moved all question details to comments, so there is a button under the question to read comments.
I'm proud of that Answer, and a real prostitute commented. I'm very happy that I've been able to communicate and inspire people who are very different from me. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Some of your questions you answered:
*"Will having sex while having strained or torn ligaments in your ankle hinder/help/or be indifferent to the healing process?" (wtf?)
  • "Why am I unable to masturbate?"
  • "Do men need more sex than women?"
  • "Is there a chance of getting pregnant when using the "withdrawal method"
  • "Would you hire an escort to improve sexual experience?"
Typing about this sort of stuff online isn't normal for a 74 year old. You're clearly perverted. My grandparents do crosswords online or read the daily news; in contrast you're posting about sex, prostitutes and masturbation. Go play in traffic you sick fuck.MrStrong (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Listen to this senile piece of shit old man who cannot even speak properly and forgets his words[edit]

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5578-abd-ul-rahman-lomax-on-the-cold-fusion-now-podcast/

lol. Thanks for the laugh.MrStrong (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • thanks for the link to that interview. It all helps. My expenses were paid by the public to attend that trial, and because the trial settled after a week, instead of the five weeks planned, I ended up with quite a bit of funding left over, which I used to attend the International Conference on Cold Fusion in Colorado the next year. Life is good. --Abd (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This guy is a dirty old perverted man obsessed with sex[edit]

https://www.quora.com/profile/Abd-Ul-Rahman-Lomax/answers/Sex

He's 74 years old and he spends his time talking about organisms and sex. Absolutely disgusting.

Also claims to be a sex-addict:

"Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, 1991 WS Conference chair 12-step program re sex addiction

Answered Apr 20, 2016 · Author has 2.1k answers and 4.4m answer views

"In the middle of things."

I have known prostitutes, even reasonably well, but never, ah, entered the space of being "in the middle of things" with one in her professional capacity, nor, as it happens, in any other capacity other than talking about sexual addiction, which is where I met them. MrStrong (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Somebody is obsessed about sex, all right. It's Oliver D. Smith (MrStrong and many many other accounts.) He wrote the original of the article attached, on RationalWiki -- or his brother Darryl did, because it was his brother I confronted for impersonation socking on Wikiversity. So, I have 37 Answers on Quora for questions categorized under "Sex." I have a total of 2,203 Answers on the site. People ask questions about sex, it's an important part of life for many or even most. Not for Oliver Smith, who is an "anti-natalist." Good thing, too, because if I can imagine how to make the world worse, it would be to have more people like Oliver D. Smith. The thought is utterly disgusting.
  • To him, anyone writing honestly what they think or feel or know about sex will be proof that they are some kind of pervert, because that's how he thinks. I have 4.4 million page views on Quora, running 100K per month. Oliver D. Smith has 14 Answers and his page views are running 468 per month. I have over 1900 followers, including some of the best writers on Quora. He has 14 followers, one of whom is actually an active Quoran, by the usual measures. (And she may have taken in a sick puppy, some Quorans do that.)
  • I did not claim to be a "sex addict." The program I mentioned is about sex addiction, among other things. The fact is that most normal people have some level of addiction to some kind of sex. I'm not saying more about the program, but sex is only part of what it addresses, so one can make few assumptions about a person from attendance at meetings. I also have been to many AA meetings and even spoke at one, but I am not an alcoholic, and never have been. I have never "used" a prostitute, I have never had sex at all with a prostitute, as far as I know (some women may engage in sex for sale on some way or other at some time, and then never talk about it, so it's not impossible. But unlikely.) -- but that's just a fact. Prostitutes are people like everyone else.
  • Oliver loves to take comments out of context, if they may, for some readers, make his targets look bad. But nobody really cares here. Since he's been ramping up his trolling in various places, he is still obsessed, but, of course, he claims that his targets are obsessed with him. I document what I see and move on. If I come back, it's generally because the behavior is repeated. So he's trolling here, now. (And on my user talk page and elsewhere.) He has, apparently, nothing better to do. Certainly not having a life. I know about and am supporting legal action over what he's done. It takes time, and effort, and sometimes money. You have to work really hard to get sued, usually. He's put in that effort, so he may get the payoff, what he's been setting up. I'm only peripheral to most of that, though he suckered an organization into libelling me, and I'm told by legal expertise that I have a case. It's still a pain in the ass to file a lawsuit, I've been putting it off because I actually have other things to do that might be more important.
While I'm here, one more comment. The quotation about the prostitute is taken out of context, which is typical for Oliver. "In the middle of things" was a quotation from the question details. Here is the full answer, and from there you can read the question. Quora, after this Answer was written, moved all question details to comments, so there is a button under the question to read comments.
I'm proud of that Answer, and a real prostitute commented. I'm very happy that I've been able to communicate and inspire people who are very different from me. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Some of your questions you answered:
*"Will having sex while having strained or torn ligaments in your ankle hinder/help/or be indifferent to the healing process?" (wtf?)
  • "Why am I unable to masturbate?"
  • "Do men need more sex than women?"
  • "Is there a chance of getting pregnant when using the "withdrawal method"
  • "Would you hire an escort to improve sexual experience?"
Typing about this sort of stuff online isn't normal for a 74 year old. You're clearly perverted. My grandparents do crosswords online or read the daily news; in contrast you're posting about sex, prostitutes and masturbation. Go play in traffic you sick fuck.MrStrong (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Listen to this senile piece of shit old man who cannot even speak properly and forgets his words[edit]

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5578-abd-ul-rahman-lomax-on-the-cold-fusion-now-podcast/

lol. Thanks for the laugh.MrStrong (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • thanks for the link to that interview. It all helps. My expenses were paid by the public to attend that trial, and because the trial settled after a week, instead of the five weeks planned, I ended up with quite a bit of funding left over, which I used to attend the International Conference on Cold Fusion in Colorado the next year. Life is good. --Abd (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Lomax's latest Wikipedia account[edit]

Fascinating (well, "interesting") MatthewManchester1994 is renamed from Skeptic from Britain, a red flag Darryl name, and, with early edits, looks like this could indeed be Darryl, it's Darryl's interests, and Oliver claimed that most WP socking was Darryl. (By interests, I would agree, but they are both banned and, under some user names, globally locked.) He later said it was all him, but even mangy tigers still have stripes. (All contributions will show under MM. This rename was easy to find. Some are not.)
Yeah, looking more carefully at contributions, MM is Darryl Smith, also known as Goblin Face, and one of the twins known as Anglo Pyramidologist. MM is under attack on his Talk page and elsewhere by a user pretending to be (or actually being) a noob. RPainter. That itself is highly suspicious. Who is this? The account has scattered edits going back to 2007. He uses manual signature, not the tildes, a not-uncommon newbie error. This user claims to be Richard Painter, an Aldbury resident and chair of the Aldbury Parish Council until 2010. It's believable. But something is weird. He's signing as "Boddisatva" (mispelled, to be sure). He ignores the advice to sign with tildes, and could be headed for a block, like many noobs, even though his first edits were over a decade ago. Naive users are often totally appalled by AP sock behaviors, confront them, and don't know how to do it, and many have been blocked. AP socks have caused massive damage, but ... they are attack dogs, useful to a faction that has money and may, indeed, financially support such activity. And the WMF looks the other way. Can't have the lunatic fringe take over Wikipedia, can we? (Wikipedia has a brilliant design with a completely dumb system for enforcing excellent policies. It's highly vulnerable to factional disruption.)
MM is Darryl, looking at the interactions, I consider it definite. First edits, dives immediately into controversy. This is an experienced editor with a Darryl Smith flag name originally, constellation of interests matching Darryl (and Darryl at one point bragged about being paid to work on skeptical topics). He realizes that the name would be a flag, so he changes it. And then RPainter comes after him. And then his brother comes here and raises another flag, the use of an AP sock as a claim of being a target user. The last major RationalWiki DS sock was "DS," i.e., Debunking spiritualism who, I'm sure, did not appreciate being outed by his brother, and created a flurry of out-of-process deletions, attracting even more attention, then claimed he'd been hacked. This is what the Smith brothers do: create such a flurry of confusing edits that (1) others are irritated and want someone to blame, and don't want to blame themselves for giving LTAs privileges, so, they can fall for it. Just blame someone already banned, to strengthen the image of the banned user as being highly disruptive, and it doesn't matter that the user has no history of behavior like what was created. They repeat the allegations with multiple accounts and the naive fall for it. Quoting Skeptic from Britain:
I have created articles for quacks on Wikipedia - example Dan Dale Alexander. So no, just because a man is a quack does not mean he cannot be on Wikipedia! It is all about reliable references. I have an interest in debunking fad diets and quackery, but this is only a part-time interest. Many of my edits on Wikipedia are related to the history of evolutionary biology. I am educated in that field, not anything else. I do not claim to be qualified in medicine or anything else. I trust proper qualified doctors and nutritionists for facts about food and dieting, not charlatans. Anyone peddling a low-carb high-fat diet is a charlatan and anti-science. LCHF is a cult that offer dangerous and misleading advice about health and nutrition.
To actually understand what was happening took me some months of study, after originally exposing impersonation socking, verified by steward checkuser. Few are willing to be that careful. On one side, some will judge by apparent affiliation, guilt by association. I.e., on RationalWiki, if the user is anti-pseudoscience (or pretends to be), they will side with him, and if the target can be claimed to be "fringe," they will then believe that he also eats babies for breakfast. Hah! I often eat eggs for breakfast, does that qualify?
I'm "office banned," which means that the Office, which has access to tools even beyond checkuser, will be vigilant in identifying and globally banning sock accounts. I was not Office-banned for socking, but probably for complaining about AP socks and alleged doxxing off-wiki (which was not expected, by a former WMF board member, to be bannable unless egregious, which what I had done certainly was not, whereas AP socks were violating the Terms of Service, grossly and obviously. And they were the major complainants, but apparently stirred up -- this was openly done on Wikipedia and Wikiversity -- a few more.
This is a long-term behavior for AP socks. They file many complaints and induce inattentive administrators to act on them, creating bans that often do not follow any warning or opportunity to respond. I was not warned by the WMF. And I had previously studied global bans. There is never a warning, and no opportunity to appeal. It is a star chamber process, which is not necessary, but ... why bother? Just push the buttons, it will get the complainers out of their hair.
The office ban makes it very unlikely that I could sock, and MM goes back to February 12, 2018. This was Darryl Smith, after some socks had been blocked and banned. I was banned February 24, 2018, and at that point I was filing checkuser requests on meta. If I had been socking, that would be like filing a police report about drugs being stolen from your house, when your house is full of illegal drugs. And with one of the police officers being quite hostile and eager to find a reason to complain or excuse to act.
It's very unlikely. I never used an open proxy until after this, and I have not edited WMF wikis since banned, period. Waste of time. I had already concluded that even Wikiversity, with the most open policies in the WMF family, allowing the exploration of fringe topics (like any university), while maintaining neutrality, was unsafe and not a place to invest work. And that was proven by subsequent events.
This accusation is typical for AP socks and especially Oliver. No evidence, just a claim. Here on ED, nobody will believe him. But he's made claims like this on "RationalWiki" and they have been believed and actioned. I'm quite sure that ODS has complained about Encyclopedia Dramatica to the domain host. ED was down for a time this morning, ED domain management may know if this was complaint-related. Obviously, it came back. He's boasted about getting other domains shut down, and many keep trying with sock after sock. Once in a while, he recruits someone naive, someone else. That makes the complaints look more solid, and host staff don't have time to really investigate. Abd (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Mr Lomax, you are a crazy senile old man who falsely accuses innocent people of owning your own sockpuppets. Notice how you present zero evidence I or my "brother" own these accounts that are you. Please get mental help! More of your insanity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_LomaxMrStrong (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I am what I am, and if this is senility, Yay!!! So, MrStrong, with zero evidence, not even signing it, claimed I was MM. I presented strong evidence that I was not (the timing!), and, then, reviewing MM contributions, and having reviewed the contributions of hundreds of "AP accounts,: many of which have clearly been confirmed as his brother, including by Oliver, I recognize the signs and testify to that, and I could document it, but that's a lot of work.
MatthewManchester1994 is Darryl Smith (banned under many names, including Goblin Face), or a more sophisticated imitator than I've ever seen. If anyone besides this troll has questions, ask me! At this point, Darryl might be able to escape checkuser identification, it happens. But this is Darryl, by the duck test, and that is how most socks are tagged and identified. They will say in the ban user page, "see contributions for evidence."
What MrStrong points to as evidence about me is the RationalWiki article on me, written by his brother Darryl (almost certainly) and later maintained by him, and then repeated by Oliver here and in many places, where he refers back to the original as proof. His brother is far less disruptive and therefore a bit more difficult to identify. It is not simply that he's anti-pseudoscience, that's common and does not identify "Smith brother," in spite of some who make that mistake. It's the pattern, and, in this case, the name is a red flag as well. There are red flags. And nobody here cares, so why bother with more evidence?
I would probably not have noticed if not for the Oliver claim here. There were indications of another "ally" of the Smith brothers, and an ally might repeat some behaviors, Wikipedians understand that and will ban as "meat puppet," but more likely, it's just Darryl. I really DGAF. I'm reporting what I see and what obvious interpretations occur to me, and if this is wrong, Darryl himself -- or the other ally, or someone else with knowledge -- could correct it. Instead, what they do is to call it all "lies," thus effectively confirming the suspicions. --Abd (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oliver knows full well that "Skeptic from Britain" / "MatthewManchester1994" / "Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434" is his brother Darryl and also tried to frame Rome Viharo for the account: File:OliverDSmithDeliberateMisinformation.png. --JuniusThaddeus (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Details by Abd[edit]

Long, archived in page history. --Abd (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2018

Abd Watch[edit]

Someone created an Abd Watch since Lomax is such a notorious troll: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/3261-the-playground/?postID=48643#post48643

After I wrote a previous post, the notorious LENR outlaw, enemy of brevity, and self-proclaimed 'King of the Trolls' Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote two pompous articles where he felt the need to describe me as a "Troll" over 30 times. Well, praise from Caesar is praise indeed, but I respectfully decline this proffered "knighthood" as I am ultimately not worthy of place in his kingdom. Whilst we are somewhat similar in that we enjoy commenting on the foibles of others, I manage to do this without using offensive terms about people’s mental faculties, such as "idiot", or "senile".

Indeed, my relative lack of trolling prestige can actually be quantified: •Number of websites and/or shady cults Zeus46 is known to be banned from: 0 •Number of websites and/or shady cults Lomax is known to be banned from: 4*

I believe he wants to bestow his highest troll honours upon me for my services in trying to improve his website. Surprisingly enough, he seems to agree with some of the points of the last "ABD watch" post. He mentions how some of "his friends" concur that his magnum dopii are bit on the lengthy side, and he also appears to agree that the inescapable biographical sign-off under each article is perhaps a little OTT.



One definite improvement that he made to his website after reading my advice, was to add a topic heading called "LENR-forum admin", so one can tally up exactly how lengthy are his bleatings about the hen-pecked moderation team here. It turns out that (so far) there are eight posts that refer to this subject... Which strangely enough is almost double those that come under the headings of both "LENR theory" and "Scientific Method" combined... ie. Once again, a mockery is made of the website's strapline: "Supporting Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research". I hope those who he tapped up for funds knew what they were getting themselves into?




Now without further ado... Here's more highlights and/or lowlights from CFC.net:



•Abd finally embraces the phrase "Planet-lomax.com", possibly because it matches with the size of his ego, apparent to myself at least, after he compared himself to Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Malcolm X. I can only assume this orbit-velocity ego prevents him from admitting to his narcissistic tendencies - A prime example being his preference to blame his blog software for the continued omnipresence of his end-of-article personal puff-pieces. •Abd's first use of the F-word... On LENR-forum that word only been uttered 25 times (Ignoring 'accidental' misspellings of Fukushima). Unsurprisingly, the potty-mouthed Abd was responsible for 10 of these. Interestingly, the second-placed coprophone was Keieueue (3 times), then Pathoskeptic (2)... Which by an astounding coincidence, is the same as their given 'order of merit' in Abd's 'Troll Hall of Fame'. Who'd have thought? •A turgid post correctly described by Abd as a "Blizzard of Blo(g)viation"... Possibly he meant that to describe LENR-forum, but LENR-forum is a forum. The only blog here is his. •A hilarious comment by Peter Gluck purposefully misquoting Winston Churchill. No doubt Gluck recognises the Ceausescu-style policy of trying to have your opponents permanently committed to the loony bin. •Finally, despite the below-shoulder-length hair visible on his avatar, and his oft-mentioned moderation duties on the famously Grateful Dead fan infested W.E.L.L. forum, Abd has previously denied his the use of hallucinogenic drugs... Which puts me at a loss to explain his confusion over the persona of the lame pastiche calling themselves "zeus45". Indeed, The only "evidence" that Abd offers for his theory that Zeus45 and I are the same person, is that a fourth person (yes, really) had a comment referring to "planet-lomax.com" (population 1) deleted from said website. Apparently he thinks my subsequent use of the phase means I must have known about this first post. Which somehow suggests that all of us are really just one person. Unfortunately for Abd, I actually pinched it from an earlier, and apparently-now-deleted, comment on ego-out. •Abd also claims that "I" (ie. the two Zeus') are "lying" about this, despite "me" saying things that are "literally true". I currently find Abd's disconnected logic on this incredibly confusing. However I have a sneaking suspicion it will all become clearer later on, as I ponder on this unintentional koan whilst watching a strangely abstract sunrise from Glastonbury's healing fields. Turn on, tune in; right Abd?

Best regards,

Zeus46 MrStrong (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Lomax the "notorious troll"[edit]

John Vidale response.png
[unsigned, by MrStrong, 15:17, 19 December 2018]
Thanks. Useful. When I review an article or comment, I will normally notify the author, and apparently I did so. I had not thought of this author since, nor have I written about him. But I will probably find that "response" and document it. Vidale was simply quoting RationalWiki, i.e., Oliver and/or Darryl Smith. They do this, feed the preconceptions of those who fall for the idea that RationalWiki (long known as a joke wiki, somewhat like ED) is at all reliable. Anyone who comments on their writings or ravings must be a troll. When the RationalWiki article on me first appeared, I was struck by how much work had been done to dig up stuff from even decades ago. It's all designed to look like mud, tossed by out-of-context quotations, often the actual source would give the opposite impression to that conveyed. And I found this with a great deal of the Smith "work" on RationalWiki and elsewhere. Liars, that is, promoting deceptive interpretations from comments ripped out of context. Examples are easy to find if anyone actually checks their sourcing and looks at context. --Abd (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I followed up on this and posted an update to that blog post. Vidale, an academic who, one might think, would know better, relied on RationalWiki for his "notorious internet troll" idea. I have been, on occasion, called a troll by trolls, rarely by anyone else. (Vadale is not a troll, merely naive. A troll would have shoved his comment in my face.)
This is a standard Smith brother tactics: create an article on RationalWikil, then when someone cites it, show that as proof. Smith has "informed" the media, with his inflammatory claims based on shallow impressions, and it has happened that media has then printed the claims (often without sourcing, but they are recognizable), and then Smith cites this as if independent evidence.
When I successfully confronted impersonation socking, on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, I was threatened with retaliation if I did not stop documenting what happened. I did not stop, and they retaliated, with the RationalWiki article and more. They threatened to destroy all my work. They failed. Some of my work on Wikiversity (it was massive) was deleted there, but I simply recovered it and put it up on my own wiki, where it is safe. I had already moved almost all my work to my own blog, which is far more flexible and useful. Wikis are unstable and vulnerable.
The blog is associated with fundraising for journalism (but I have never raised funds for documenting the Smith brothers. I might if it is needed.) As to writing on other sites, it is almost entirely on Quora, which blocks trolls easily and quickly. I have over 4 million page views there, almost two thousand followers, and it is not my major activity. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Lomax's toxic internet history of trolling[edit]

Lomax spreading misinformation about John66[edit]

Neither me nor my "brother" who Lomax seems obsessed with own this account https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:John66 It seems to be some guy from France.

Various people contacted me on twitter about it, and I just told them Lomax is a liar who writes BS on his blog. Needless to say no one takes him serious.Tobias Rieper (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Why if a Smith brother appears, creating a new account and tells us, right off, that Lomax is a liar, without pointing to any actual lies, it must be true! Lick it up! That's some delicious shit!
Darryl was editing Wikipedia as Skeptic from Britain, and, just before diving into some furious activity, intended to attract attention, he created John66 on RationalWiki to start up articles on exactly the same topics as Skeptic from Britain, with five edits, and then, as the shit started falling, he had SfB renamed (twice!) and retired, claiming he had been outed. But the "outing" was by socks, him or his brother, on blogs. (Ten days later, tiring of blog socking, he went back to work on RationalWiki.
Here on ED, as MrStrong, Oliver accused me of being Skeptic from Britain and farted on my User talk page. I had been unaware of the whole mess until then. So I checked. Yes, it was Darryl, attempting to frame someone who had criticized him on Wikipedia. When I exposed this, a blizzard of socks appeared. Gee, I wonder who that could be? After all, Oliver will remind us, "You have no PROOF!" Maybe there really are dozens of people spewing the same diarrhea as Darryl and Oliver. Maybe there are a dozen ducks quacking in chorus. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You are all mentally ill sperging about rationalwiki accounts. There is more to life than this you know Mr Abd? Does rationalwiki get you off? You wake up thinking about rationalwiki accounts then you write 10 billion words about it on your blog. Seek medical help. You have internet addiction disorder. Have you ever played snooker? It is good fun. Go and do normal activities. Get off the computer once and a while. I could beat you at snooker blind-folded. FarLeftie (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Darryl. I see nothing has changed. How's it hanging? Still have that amorous relationship with your dog? --Abd (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes your lame method of trolling me is by claiming Mikemikev socks are my brother. How original.Tobias Raper (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Abd, linking to made up BS on your blog isn't evidence. I see no evidence "Skeptic from Britain" is my brother and viewing your blog article, you provide none. Your blog only exists to harass me by spreading lies about me or my family - you're now tagging dozens of blog articles with my brother's name to negatively influence Google searches. That's always been your MO: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax "[Abd] likes to 'weaponize' Google searches, so if someone searches a name — his blog will show up with ad hominem and smears written about them".Tobias Raper (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict with below) :::Time for the Smith brothers to taste their own medicine, actually long past due. This isn't about "someone," it is about Oliver D. Smith and his twin brother, Darryl L. Smith, not the whole family, and, of course, after claiming for years that the whole "Smith brother" story was a 'conspiracy theory,' Oliver, of late, has been outing himself and his brother everywhere. I have presented evidence and it's obvious, and I have not presented all that I have, because they are still active and I don't want them to know all the flags they are waving. It's actually pretty difficult to run multiple accounts and create no evidence, and the Smiths don't really care if they are discovered, because, after a few months or whenever they are exposed, they simply start up new accounts. John66 got sysop on RW with a few days of editing. He was obviously highly experienced, not a new editor "from France," and so was Skeptic from Britain not new. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"Here on ED, as MrStrong, Oliver accused me of being Skeptic from Britain" -- it's a troll wiki. Nothing on main-space articles is serious. You've been trolling me by writing nonsense about me on this wiki for ages; I merely retaliated and had some fun. Predictably, you then ran to your blog and wrote thousands of words on SfB that no one cares about. Notice if you do a websearch on that name -- it's only you (a crackpot with a conspiracy theory blog) that posts these baseless allegations about SfB. Tobias Raper (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
----> Lomax first falsely accused my brother of owning John66. He's now whining like a hypocritical retard that I accused him of being another account. Falsely accusing me/my brother is all this retard does all year; I do it once back to him and suddenly it's the end of the world... lol Tobias Raper (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Stating a fact is not "whining," and I was grateful for the reference, because it exposed a huge mess that ended up with effective impersonation, trolling blogs to accuse a critic of being Skeptic of Britain, and then it led me to John66 and more, because Skeptic from Britain was quite active, almost 5000 edits, which is a lot of grist for the sock detection mill. How's the lawsuit going, Oliver? --Abd (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Provide evidence or admit you're trolling again, Abd[edit]

You never provided any evidence SfB or John66 is me, or my brother. In fact you admitted the possibility you could be wrong (which you are).

List the evidence. Failure to do so just exposes you as a troll which everyone knows you already are anyway.Tobias Raper (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm less interested in the Wikipedia account(s). I'm more curious why you bizarrely think: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:John66 is me or my brother. That user has even listed their real name, location and job on the account. Are you claiming this is fake? That just makes you look even more irrational.Tobias Raper (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, fake, as seen with many, many Smith socks. Only a Smith would continue to argue after being so thoroughly exposed. Nothing in that is verifiable, so how does this Smith brother know it's real?
The basic evidence is simple: specific article interests and MO. This is the Wikipedia "duck test," routinely used. Then there are edit timings, which I've been studying for maybe a month now, long term, for both Oliver and Darryl. Long-term, you can see the account transitions. Oliver and Darryl are, long-term, quite different. At one point, Oliver attempted to create more confusion by telling me and Rome Viharo that there was no brother, it was all him, originally lying to avoid getting blocked on Wikipedia. He was lying. And that's what he does. He knows he's lying, or he is truly insane, schizophrenic, as he claimed at one point.
It takes time to know enough to apply the duck test. Notice that what is useless as evidence on this point -- the claimed name and job, etc. -- is asserted by a Smith brother as if it proves something.
But the duck test in this case is completely obvious. The editing of John66 shows that this account was created as Skeptic from Britain was preparing to bail. It made five edits on RationalWiki that, had I seen them, would have raised, all by themselves, strong suspicion that this was Darryl, who has long term patterns that are easy to spot. Then Darryl went back to Wikipedia and edited up a storm. This is documented on the Skeptic from Britain page, and subpages (the most recent evidence is on subpages). I have not yet documented the article "coincidences." But John66 took up SfB's agenda from Wikipedia, same topics, only now on RationalWiki.
The Skeptic from Britain affair is documented here. Notice the subpages, and, in particular, the most recent, [1]. Darryl decided to impersonate someone who often comments on my blog. He does this simply to troll. He's done it many times, he will create an account with the name of imagined friends or enemies, the latter to attempt to create anomosity. It was impersonation socking that got me involved with the Smiths in the first place. It had caused major damage, to long term work by many people. He went after academic freedom, which he hates.

Edits of Debunking spiritualism and John66 to RatWiki and Skeptic from Britain to Wikipedia

First, Debunking spiritualism on RationalWiki (red dots). This was Darryl, and had been outed by Oliver as his brother, ODS. DS (notice the initials) eventually went on a deletion spree, massively attempting to cover up evidence, then claimed he had been hacked and retired, and, of course, they claimed I had hacked his account. Yeah, right, I would hack his account and use it to make it difficult for others to see it, all to . . . what? That RationalWikians seem to believe these wild stories speaks volumes about RatWiki.
Then there is Skeptic from Britain (blue dots), you can see the dovetailing with DS, and then the edits of John66 (orange dots). I have not yet added all the blog trolls that accused a Wikipedia user who had confronted SfB on Wikipedia of being SfB.
The John66 edits can be seen dovetailing with the SfB edits for a few days. To show this much more clearly, I published a closeup:
Dovetailing of Skeptic from Britain and John66
time of day for John66 editing
These are day by day, and "sessions" are visible, and John66 fits right into SfB sessions, with substantial gap. Then, as can be seen above, SfB began editing Wikipedia furiously, getting ready to bail. There is then a 10 day gap. What was he doing? In that period, there was substantial activity on blogs, but much of that has been deleted and it is not easy to find.
Then John66 started up with exactly the same interests as Skeptic from Britain, on RatWiki. On Wikipedia, they would immediately identify these as socks, even without checkuser.
Someone pointed to the edit timing of John66, i.e., the hours when he edits. So I did a closeup for that. He's crazy, edits all night on occasion (the charts show Universal Time, which is the same as standard time in England, where Daryll lives). But he does then get some sleep. On the 18th, the last day compiled so far, he edited for an 18 hour period (uh, tell me again who is obsessed!), but then he did not edit at all on the 19th.
I did an edit timing study for Bongolian, who is not a Smith brother, as a control, to see what a non-Smith would look like. From his editing, one can tell his daily schedule, and from time shifts twice a year, he's in the Pacific Time Zone, probably in the U.S. And he is not a Smith brother. Ah, science!
(On RatWiki, the Smiths routinely claim that I believe all RatWiki editors are them. No, only maybe 1% of the 60,000. That is not an exaggeration, though I don't have a count yet. Smith socks stand out, once one becomes familiar with the patterns. -- But many of the accounts have only very few edits and so identification can be obscure, and it is quite possible that the Smiths have been impersonated, and I know for certain they have impersonated me.-- Darryl claimed, however, that he has many undiscovered socks, and I'm looking for them. There are certain gaps in the record where, after being furiously active, he seems to disappear, and then returns with furious activity. Reddit? Twitter? Or other socks on RatWiki and Wikipedia, less obvious? Maybe.)
Informants are showing up to comment anonymously on my blog. So far, I think they are all Smith, planting red herrings, accusing innocent editors. In the most recent case, the target was someone whom a Smith sock (blocked as such, it was probably Darryl) had accused of being a sock of his own prior account, which was not a violation of policy at all. These are haters, and lie routinely to attack their targets. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Laughing* Thanks for admitting you're a troll, Abd. None of that is evidence. By the same logic I must own your account since we both overlap in time when we posted here. Tobias Raper (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
That does not primarily show overlap in time, actually the opposite, and it shows two accounts supposedly not interacting with each other, one on RatWiki and the other on Wikipedia (a "back-and-forth" might look like that, if there was no other editing going on). It is evidence, all right, and would stand in court if introduced on oath, and, with the duck test evidence, which is quite strong, it would result in blocks on Wikipedia, and would convince a jury (should it matter legally). What you have not seen is the 50,000 edits I've studied, since 2012, showing the long-term behavior for Darryl (and also for Oliver. Because Oliver edits much less copiously than Darryl, I'm still studying his patterns and that is part of why I collected the ED and Wrongpedia accounts.).
Anyway, you are a waste of time and air. You demanded evidence, you got it, at least you got what I'm willing to disclose at this time. And you are not the judge or jury. If anyone cares, they can look at that and can ask me questions about it. I get email notifications from my Talk page here, and I see all comments on the blog. --Abd (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
You didn't provide any evidence you liar. You're delusional. All I see is a few crappy images you made about edit activity which mean absolutely nothing. No this wouldn't be used as evidence in a court (laughable). I asked you to provide evidence and you provided nothing. All you do is lie. And yes, liars are a waste of time.EverybodyGolf (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Abd Lomax lying about his job on his blog[edit]

Laughably Lomax is now describing himself as a "journalist" on his blog.

He has delusions he's some sort of sleuth journalist "exposing" me or my brother despite all he writes is defamation and lies and no one else has any interest in us except this crazy old man.

What university did Lomax study journalism? What newspaper or news website has he written for?

None of course -- Lomax has no qualifications and is now lying about himself being a "journalist".Tobias Raper (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Trolling trolls troll, it's what they do.

I have never claimed to have a "job" as a journalist. I do claim to be a journalist, and I've been given a press pass on occasion. Look up the word, I meet the definition.

See Quora on this issue. Specifically, I'm a blogger, and blogging can be a form of journalism. Mostly I report on issues relating to cold fusion, and the Smiths made themselves related by organizing an attack on cold fusion on Wikiversity, where the topic had been studied for years without any problems. They and their friends attacked academic freedom and neutrality, and that happens to be a concern of mine.

I've been funded for expenses, quite adequately, thank you, including travel and what it cost to stay in Miami for the Rossi v. Darden trial. I had a spectacular Airbnb close to the courthouse and was the first in the world to report that the lawsuit had settled.

If there are any false statements on the blog, I appreciate correction, but the ravings of a troll here or anywhere do not establish fact. I do make mistakes and correct them when they are pointed out, but crying "lies!" without stating specifics is just more ranting, and the Smiths have done that from the beginning of my involvement, where mere lists of accounts checkuser-tagged as Anglo Pyramidologist socks were called "lies." I knew then that I was onto something. I had no idea how deep this went. --Abd (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't "correct" or remove the countless smears and lies on your blog, you're one of the most dishonest individuals I've encountered e.g.
coldfusioncommunity.net/tag/oliver-d-smith/: "Authentic Darryl Smith on himself" --> This entire post is misinformation and lies; you're falsely claiming my brother was the user "Skeptic". He never was and you provide no evidence. You're responding to a troll impersonator account from years ago and post walls of text of absolute nonsense in response; the amount of lies about me in that post are too many to count, almost everything you post about me is maligning, insulting and defaming me. Claiming you don't lie when that's blatantly all you do shows you have some form of personality disorder. I've highlighted only one libellous blog article you wrote; you've published over 50 more.Tobias Raper (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This Smith brother is spamming his deceptions all over ED. I've responded on the points above on this page: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/other-wikis/arguments-from-oliver/. He has not shown any lies, he argues with reports of fact, calling them lies, and a stated suspicion is a fact (i.e, it's a report of a mental state) if the suspicion is at all reasonable, and all of the ones he has pointed to are reasonable, even if they were factually incorrect, which I consider unlikely. There are clear cases where Smith brothers claimed impersonation when it was them. I'm one example, when Debunking spiritualism (Darryl) deleted a pile of pages that contained outing, he then claimed he had been hacked and it was then claimed I had hacked his account. I certainly know I didn't, and this is a common pattern. If these are impersonations, someone spends much time, months, doing exactly what Smith brothers do, and when someone calls them by name, they disappear, and then claim they were impersonated. Meanwhile Oliver has claimed that "most" of the accounts I've listed as suspected socks on ED were not him, though, in fact, many of them admitted to being him, and he never gets specific.

Who was RationalWiki "Skeptical"? He retired promptly when he was called "Oliver." And I think he was Oliver, not Darryl. This is routine, by the way, Oliver or Darryl refer to a page but do not give the actual page name so that it's easy to find. http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/authentic-darryl-smith-on-himself/ There, I do refer to an ED editor, "Skeptic" as being Darryl. I repeat the detail on Skeptic on the "arguments from Oliver" page, including his entire statement, which, made in 2016, could not have been made by anyone other than Darryl. "Tobias Raper" is lying, whether he is Oliver or Darryl. I think I'm done here for today. --Abd (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a load more misinformation and lies. Yawn. You're also proven to be a liar.EverybodyGolf (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Abd Lomax exposed as a pathological liar and slanderer[edit]

   
 
I have not accused Oliver (Tobias Creeper) of being a Nazi or fascist. -- Abd 01:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 

 
 

According to Lomax, he hasn't accused me of being a Nazi/fascist. Yet... on my article talk page:


   
 
[Oliver] The widely exposed fascist troll, serial impersonator and real-life harasser, abuser of sheep. --Abd (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 

 
 

I won't link to his crazy blog, but the same smear I'm a fascist is repeated on several articles. When I ask this liar to provide evidence for this, he denies he wrote these things despite his own comment history contradicts him. No evidence of course exists I'm a Nazi or fascist because I'm not, and never was - only trolls make this absurd claim. He's now amended this fascist smear on one of his blog articles to I used to "hold right-wing views" or something as stupid. Again, no evidence provided and this also false.EverybodyGolf (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Last I looked, "being" refers to present tense. I don't know if he is a present fascist, but he has denied being antifascist. This is Encyclopedia Dramatica, where extreme claims are the norm. But, since Oliver seems to be upset at reports (hopefully attributed) that he formerly held fascist views, I take it it back.
He is not "widely exposed," only a very small number of people have heard of him, he is not a serial impersonator because he impersonates many at the same time, and the sheep were not abused because they were already dead. It's much easier to retract than to go over the Metapedia records, etc.
Seriously, if there is a false claim on the blog, references please or STFU. Since Metapedia is back up, I've added a link to Atlantid. --Abd (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Almost everything I read on your blog about me is false like above. Why should I waste more time reading through your garbage smears?EverybodyGolf (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm only really concerned with the potential defamation on your blog about Nazism, so please respond to User_talk:I_am_Mikemikev#Clear_up_your_Wikipedia_socks_with_Abd... concerning his Wikipedia socks.EverybodyGolf (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

See Talk:Mikemikev#Mikemikev.27s_Wikipedia_sockpuppets EverybodyGolf (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

EverbodyGolf is "discussing" with himself. I responded in detail to the issue of how many alleged Mikemikev socks are actually him. Oliver doesn't know how to read English, all he sees is IDONTLIKEIT. It looks like as many as two-thirds of the alleged socks either were not accounts at all (IP addresses only) and some were clearly impersonations, as was obvious to some Wikipedians, even though they were clueless about the identity of Vihann Khatri, but somehow figured it out. It was completely obvious to anyone who has been so unfortunate as to have seen many Oliver Smith edits. --Abd (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet more misinformation from Abd, will he ever stop?[edit]

"he has denied being antifascist" -- more nonsense from Abd. Where are you getting this from? What I denied is being a user named "antifascist" on Wrongpedia because I don't own that account. I oppose fascism and all other forms of authoritarianism/totalitarianism and always have done. All I denied is owning a troll account, not that I deny being against fascism... As for Abd's sudden obsession with my 6 year old edits on Metapedia - I also edited Liberapedia, RationalWiki and Conservapedia. So by his logic am I also a Liberal and Conservative? I never claimed to agree with the politics of any wiki I've ever edited. Of course, Lomax only fixates with my Metapedia edits and not Liberapedia or Conservapedia edits because calling me a liberal or conservative isn't a smear or damaging to someone's reputation, but trying to link them to the "far-right" is.EverybodyGolf (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Funny he should mention Conservapedia.. So he likes to quote what I wrote out of context, but this is clear: I wrote "he has denied being antifascist," and above he admits denying being antifascist. What I want from Metapedia is edit timing, that is what is easy to collect. Collecting his point of view is a PITA, I'd have to actually read the adolescent rants.
He is claiming that "antifascist" is an account. I have not claimed that it is not, I simply wrote what I wrote, this being, last I noticed, ED. Oliver Smith: easily trolled. Okay, what account is it, on what site? Meanwhile, were the sheep actually dead, or were they just pretending? --Abd (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Oliver isn't even a real-ass Jew he's some fake-ass "British Israelite" Jew even the real Jews want nothing to do with his whitebread crackerjack ass, Bitchish Israelite more like, Oliver toadies around smearing and defaming white patriots trying to suck up to his Jewish heroes and they just laugh in his dime store Saxon face. Sad. I am Mikemikev (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I did research Oliver's edits on Metapedia, on my blog, and it showed clearly that he was a racist, fascist, and antisemitic. You can tell by the material he added to articles, where opinion is inserted, not merely quoted from a source. Some of his material was totally blatant. Something happened between him and Mikemikev, and it's not clear, because a great deal of Metapedia content appears to be missing. But things were heating up here on ED and on RationalWiki. RationalWiki material has also been deleted, but more of it is available anyway.
  • Oliver served the beast, a racist wiki, and did not clean up the mess. And then he blames other people for saying he was what he was. If he changed his mind, good for him, but then he would have a responsibility to clean it up. He does not appear to have been blocked for trying to fix content, and a true cleanup would have attempted to balance articles he had created. If they had stopped him, then it would have been out of his hands, but the effort would have been visible. But he did very little, and instead of cleaning up, I suspect he began to attack his former collaborators, and then whined about being mentally ill. That part is probably true! --Abd (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Well don't just stand there with that dumb look on your face. Now that Mikemikev is gone, you and Oliver gotta take the music someplace else. Take it past where you found it. Yellowbird (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Yellowbird are you such a wikidimwit that you don't notice the name on the page attached? When I am accused of lying, as I was, over and over, here on the Talk page for an article Oliver created about me, my habit is to provide actual evidence, which I did. But not here, it is merely linked. It is not lulzy enough to be here. So Oliver was a fascist. Yawn. But it's factual, and evidenced.
Oliver is not "gone" nor is Mikemikev, merely because a few accounts were blocked a day ago, unless someone actually puts in the work to track these and enforces bans, which doesn't happen because it's way too much work.
Quietfaggot small.jpg HEY FUCKTARD!
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, you are being a stupid cunt! You need to stop now.
Keep it up and you gonna get raped.
This means you too, diebythesword. Yellowbird (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I would appreciate if you could just indef-ban Abd Lomax's account and also ban my latest now. He's only using ED to spread lies about me.Diebythesword (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. GTFO. Yellowbird (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Lomax's insanity continues...[edit]

Lomax responded to my other reply, so I'll leave this that can be removed since I know he reads here:

  • Hereditarian: As explained (and anyone can read my 2013 paper), I never was a hereditarian. Out of 2000 Metapedia edits, Lomax ignores me criticizing hereditarianism, which is how I got to clash with Mikemikev in the first place, and he finds only a single edit in January 2013 to misconstrue i.e. Lomax says "I first termed Oliver “hereditarian” because of his comment when he blocked a user without warning, merely for (Inserting false information: vandalism on the Gypsy page (the usual liberal nonsense they have lower IQ because of social-economic conditions). The edit. By his response, Oliver was negating “environmentalism,” in a way that leaves only hereditarianism in place. I see no excuse, and he does not attempt to provide an explanation." -- This is a non sequitur. There have been oppressed and discriminated groups throughout history living in squalor, but examples exist of these populations having on average, a high IQ. So the idea Gypsies have low IQ on average because of racism and/or poor living conditions is a liberal fantasy. I'm not sure why Lomax thinks if I point this out I must be a hereditarian i.e. maintain IQ differences between populations are due to genetic factors. I was always critical of the latter and I fully debunked hereditarianism on RationalWiki. My simple explanation for low Gypsy mean IQ is their backward culture, which is environmentalism, but a different explanation than racism or poverty. I don't believe all world cultures are equal e.g. Australian aboriginal tribes have an undeniably primitive culture. I'm not going to deny this reality to avoid hurting someone's feelings. Liberals of course think all cultures are equal; they're not, so they avoid discussing culture in the race and IQ debate unless they're talking about cultural biases on IQ tests, when it suddenly is the white man's fault... And I consider the liberal view to be as bad as the hereditarian hypothesis; the cultural theory to be common-sense and middle-ground between the two extremes.
  • Fascist: Lomax now claims I'm a fascist not because of my political-ideology (direct-democracy), but my alleged "authoritarian behaviour" on the internet which is a load of BS.
  • Racialist: Lomax describes my April 2013 paper as "racialist". At that time I was indeed arguing for the existence of human races as opposed to a non-racialist who denies their biological reality. I don't have a problem with this label, but it's somewhat misleading since in that paper I outline 7 definitions of race and I dispute or rather debunk 5 of them, while being critical of another... So for those 5 (or 6) definitions of race: I'm a race denialist i.e. non-racialist. Depending on what specific race definition someone uses they can be simultaneously a racialist and a non-racialist. This is something Mikemikev fails to understand. He disagreed with my race definition and labelled me a race denialist on Metapedia, when I actually was using a race concept, but not the definition he used that is pseudoscience. And because I disagreed with the more popular definitions of race for an atypical definition (ecotypes), Anthroscapers even called me in November 2013 a "borderline race denier".
  • Paper deletions: Lomax asks "So Oliver wrote extensively-researched papers, a lot of work, and then deleted them. Why?" The simple answer is I lost interest in these topics, as I already said. For the same reason I deleted my papers or essays on UFOs. I wrote about a lot of different things when I was at university; some interests I had ages back, I no longer write or think much about, others I still do. Lomax instead ignores this straightforward explanation of why I deleted these papers, and claims I deleted them to "try to hide" them. No idea what he's talking about. I've never tried to hide anything.
  • "Disavow the paper": Lomax oddly wants me to "disavow" the aforementioned paper I wrote. Unclear why. I disagree with very little I wrote in it; I more or less have the same opinions I wrote in this paper nearly 6 years back, only that my semantics for the race definition I defended has changed. I've pointed this out elsewhere, such as a post on Sci Forums in 2016; I no longer consider calling ecotypes as races and neither does Jonathan Kaplan (who co-wrote a paper on ecotypes in 2003), although I cannot be bothered to dig that quote up when he changed his view about the semantics (it was in 2011). Lomax is a pseudo-sceptic and is labelling all this "pseudoscience" when he doesn't even know what it is e.g. this race concept never has involved IQ, only a handful of phenotypic characters (skin colour, hair texture, nose size etc) as I mentioned in my paper quoting Grover Krantz. Since Lomax knows almost nothing about the topic, he should refrain from further commenting.
  • Anti-Semitism: There's no anti-Semitism in my Metapedia edits, if you want anti-Semitism just view Mikemikev's edit history who vilified and attacked Jews in nearly every edit and was obsessed with trying to disprove the Holocaust; I criticized him for both. According to Lomax out of my 2000 edits, the only "anti-Semitism" he could find was me adding a star of David next to someone's name who actually was a Jewish person... And I don't even remember doing this and couldn't care less, if I did do it, the fact I only did it once out of 2000 edits shows its triviality.

-- If you continue to smear and lie about me being a fascist, hereditarian or anti-Semite, Mr. Lomax, provide some actual evidence for once... You also spend a lot of time now setting up straw man arguments. You've mostly now shifted from the absurd fascist allegation to claiming I wrote some racist comments 6 years ago. I've never denied the latter and no one except you seems to care.The Mark of Kri (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When I say "GTFO", I mean it. That is all. Yellowbird (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This is really Lulzy[edit]

Can we get a actual article dedicated to this guy? Could be some good content. Bi, Furfaggot (Kek), your mum gey (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Who you talking about? We three (Abd, Mikemikev, and myself) have ED articles here already. I've asked them for years to remove mine because it's filled with libel and is a fake biography, but they keep it up to troll me.EverybodyGolf (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This fucking guy You realize your on ED right? If your not prepared for that type of shit then you shouldn't be on here LUL Bi, Furfaggot (Kek), your mum gey (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)